User talk:Ganesha811

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rough counts

It's generally not constructive to provide sections like you added at ANI, as the closer will be reading and assessing the entire discussion anyway, and write-ups like that can be seen as trying to sway the closer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize that wasn't an acceptable practice. Was just curious myself, and having counted, figured I'd share. I will bear this in mind for the future. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That's why we call them !votes. ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware - however, I know that where there is not an clear deficit of policy-based arguments on one side, the rough count is often judged by the closer as part of assessing consensus. Nevertheless, it was unwise to share such a count without being the closer, out of idle curiosity. My mistake! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I understand how it can seem helpful, but it looks bad and doesn't actually help when closing discussions. I've closed a fair number of discussions, and I specifically don't look at any !vote counts or the like, and if it's a content RFC I don't even look at the article. It's best to go into a closing with as little prejudice as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Emigrants from British India to the United States

I really think this is a better form to use in such categories. I think I had forgotten the other one existed when I created the new one. There is no difference, but I think the Emigrants from X place to Y place is a better overall form. This especially applies in places like British India or the Ottoman Empire, where subjects could identify in many ways, and often would not see a loyalty to the ruling polity, but we are categorizing the flow of people from place X to place Y.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)